Archive for the ‘Defense Trade Controls’ Category

Man Pleads Guilty to Stealing Sensitive Military Documents from United Technologies and Exporting Them to China

Tuesday, January 31st, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

By: Danielle McClellan

Yu Long, 38, a citizen of China and permanent resident of the US, plead guilty on December 19, 2016 to one count of conspiracy to engage in the theft of trade secrets as well as one count of unlawful export and attempted export of defense articles from the US. Long worked as a Senior Engineer/Scientist at United Technologies Research Center (UTRC) from May 2008 to May 2014 where he worked on F119 and F135 engines. During this time Long always intended to return to China to work on research projects at state-run universities in China using the knowledge and materials he was acquiring at UTRC. During 2013 and 2014, Long was recruited by Shenyang Institute of automation (SIA), of China, where he substantiated claims that he could provide documents from his work at UTRC and examples of projects on which he worked.

On May 30, 2014, Long left URTC and began travelling back and forth between the US and China with a UTRC external hard drive that he unlawfully retained after his employment ended. On November 7, 2014, Long was arrested, two days after he attempted to board a plane to China with sensitive, proprietary and export controlled documents from Rolls Royce, not URTC. His checked baggage was inspected by CBP officer in Newark, NJ, where the hard drive was found with all of the proprietary, export controlled information.

After his digital media was seized it was found that he had voluminous files protected by the ITAR and EAR, as well as files proprietary to UTRC, Pratt, and Rolls Royce. UTRC confirmed that the hard drive that he stole and accessed in China contained not only documents and data from projects long worked on, but also from projects that he did not work on. It was found that he obtained Pratt and Rolls Royce proprietary information from a project that the US Air Force had convened a consortium of major defense contractors to work together to see if they could collectively lower the costs of specific metals used.

A sentencing date has not been set but Long faces a maximum term of imprisonment for 15 years for the theft of trade secrets charge and 20 years of imprisonment for violated the Arms Export Act.

More Information: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-national-admits-stealing-sensitive-military-program-documents-united-technologies

DDTC Posts IT Modernization Webinar: Commodity Jurisdiction

Tuesday, November 15th, 2016 by Danielle McClellan

(Source: State/DDTC)

The webinar presented October 14, 2016 regarding the upcoming deployment of Defense Export Control and Compliance System (DECCS) Release 1 is available for review. The webinar provided a brief overview of the status of the IT Modernization effort and a demonstration of the new Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) (DS-4076) interface.

Click here to read
Recorded webinar
Presentation slides

State/DDTC No Longer Accepts CJ Submission through EFS

Tuesday, November 15th, 2016 by Danielle McClellan

(Source: State/DDTC)

Effective Wednesday, November 16th at 5PM EST, The Department of State will no longer use the Electronic Form Submission (EFS) application to accept Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) (DS-4076) applications. Beginning Monday, November 21st at 8AM EST users will submit CJ applications via the Defense Export Control and Compliance (DECCS) CJ application.

DDTC Posts Schedule for Uploading Licensing Submissions and Posting Licenses

Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 by Danielle McClellan

(Source: State/DDTC)

Effective September 6, 2016, The Department of State will only be uploading licensing submissions (i.e., DSP -5, -6, -61, -62, -73, -74, and Batch Scheams) and posting licenses (Approved, Approved with Provisos, RWA’ed, and Denied) at 06:30 AM and again at 5:30 PM.

DDTC Posts Revision 4.4a of the Agreement Guidelines

Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 by Danielle McClellan

(Source: State/DDTC)

Revision 4.4a of the Agreement Guidelines has been posted and replaces Revision 4.4.

Revision 4.4a corrects an inadvertent omission on page 152. Both Revision 4.4a and a preamble with a summary of changes can be found here. Revision 4.4a is effective September 1, 2016.

Pakistani National Extradited and Sentenced to 33 Months in Prison for Conspiracy to Export Gyroscopes to Pakistan

Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 by Danielle McClellan

By: Danielle McClellan

Syed Vaqar Ashraf (71) of Lahore, Pakistan (also known as Vaqar A. Jaffrey) was sentenced to 33 months in prison after being extradited from Belgium on July 31, 2015. According to court documents, in June 2012 Ashraf began asking a Tucson-based company, who shall remain nameless, for price quotes for unmanned aerial vehicles (drones). The company specializes in the design, development, and manufacturing of drones for the US military. The company immediately tipped off Homeland Security Investigations (HIS) agents about Ashraf’s requests.  HSI quickly assigned special agents to work undercover as employees of the Tucson-based company and they began dialoging with Ashraf directly.

From June 2012 to August 2014, Ashraf negotiated with special agents. He represented himself as the head of I&E International, based in Lahore, Pakistan.  Most of the correspondence was done via email where he agreed to purchase 18 gyroscopes that were intended to help medium-sized drones fly longer distances as well as 10 optical receiver modules and laser diodes intended to be installed in the aircraft for approximately $440,000.

In September 2013, HSI agents met with Ashraf in Vienna, Austria to work out details regarding the sale. Ashraf explained during the meeting that Pakistan’s nuclear program had been developed using technology exported from the west without a license. This led the agents to believe that Ashraf was working for Pakistan’s Advanced Engineering Research Organization and the intended use for the electronics was for the Pakistani military UAV program.

From January to March 2014 Ashraf asked agents for suggestions to get around the US export controls after agents requested a license from the Commerce Department and were told that the items would require a special license because the optical receive modules could be used in “activities related to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or missile delivery systems.” Ashraf asked if there were any alternative descriptions that would appear to cover the items on documents, but would clear arms control hurdles from State and Commerce departments.  Secret agents offered Ashraf with a few different descriptions and asked him if the customer was aware that transaction was “being done without a license.” Ashraf told the agents that they (customer) were “absolutely aware of everything.” Later in an email, Ashraf wrote, “He (customer) is well aware that he cannot get these gyros in a normal way; he’s well aware of that.” The ultimate plan was to transship all of the items; they would be shipped to Pakistan through Belgium.

HIS agents met with Ashraf three more times in face-to-face meetings, including one in the US where they agreed on a series of wire transfers, including one for $67,000. On August 26, 2014 agents set up a final meeting with Ashraf in Belgium to deliver some of the technology. Before the meeting began Belgian police showed up and arrested Ashraf. A little less than a year later Ashraf was extradited to the US to face trial on charges of conspiracy to export defense controlled items without a license which he later pled guilty to.

Read more: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pakistani-national-extradited-and-sentenced-attempting-export-sensitive-technology-pakistani

The Last Hoorah for Reform?

Tuesday, September 6th, 2016 by Danielle McClellan

By: Danielle McClellan

Over three years ago (April 2013) the first set of Export Control Reform regulations were published in the Federal Register, they were over 100 pages long and made the regulations more complex but also significantly relaxed controls on some items. Over the last few years reform has come in the form of waves and moved items from the USML onto the CCL in batches. Now, as the Obama Administration is moving out it looks as though we are about to see the last list shift for a while.

The final rule, which will be effective December 31, 2016, will move specific items controlled under Category XIV and Category XVIII. Basically, items that have been determined to no longer warrant ITAR control (toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents, and associated equipment, along with directed energy weapons) will be controlled under the Commerce Control List (CCL). The affected Category XIV items consist of dissemination, detection, and protection “equipment” and related articles, such as production and test “equipment,” and will be controlled under new ECCNs 1A607, 1B607, 1C607, 1D607 and 1E607. The affected Category XVIII articles will follow in suit with being primarily tooling, production “equipment,” test and evaluation “equipment,” test models, and related articles and will be controlled under new ECCNs 6B619, 6D619, and 6E619.

Specific Regulation Changes:

ITAR:

  • This final rule adopts for those pathogens and toxins that meet specific capabilities listed in paragraph (b) the ‘‘Tier 1’’ pathogens and toxins established in the Department of Health and Human Services and the United States Department of Agriculture select agents and toxins regulations (42 CFR part 73 and 9 CFR part 121). The Tier 1 pathogens and toxins that do not meet these capabilities remain controlled in Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 1C351 on the CCL.
  • Additionally, this rule, in concert with the analogous rule published by the Department of Commerce, moves riot control agents to the export jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, as well as the articles covered previously in paragraphs (j), (k), and (l), which include test facilities, equipment for the destruction of chemical and biological agents, and tooling for production of articles in paragraph (f), respectively.
  • Other changes include the addition of paragraph (a)(5) to control chemical warfare agents ‘‘adapted for use in war’’ and not elsewhere enumerated, as well as the removal of paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(6) and movement to the CCL of equipment for the sample collection and decontamination or remediation of chemical agents and biological agents.
  • Paragraph (f)(5) for collective protection was removed and partially combined in paragraph (f)(4) or the CCL.
  • Paragraph (g) enumerates antibodies, recombinant protective antigens, polynucleotides, biopolymers, or biocatalysts exclusively funded by a Department of Defense contract for detection of the biological agents listed in paragraph (b)(1)(ii).
  • The Department notes that the controls in paragraph (f)(2) that include the phrase ‘‘developed under a Department of Defense contract or other funding authorization’’ do not apply when the Department of Defense acts solely as a servicing agency for a contract on behalf of another agency of the U.S. government. Moreover, ‘‘other funding authorization’’ refers to other funding authorization from the Department of Defense.
  • The Department notes that the controls in paragraphs (g)(1) and (h) that include the phrase ‘‘exclusively funded by a Department of Defense contract’’ do not apply when the Department of Defense acts solely as a servicing agency for a contract on behalf of another agency of the U.S. government, or, for example, in cases where the Department of Defense provides initial funding for the development of an item but another agency of the U.S. government provides funding to further develop or adapt the item.
  • Paragraph (h) enumerates certain vaccines funded exclusively by the Department of Defense, as well as certain vaccines controlled in (h)(4) that are specially designed for the sole purpose of protecting against biological agents and biologically derived substances identified in (b). Thus, the scope of vaccines controlled in (h)(4) is circumscribed by the nature of funding and the satisfaction of the term ‘‘specially designed’’ as that term is defined in ITAR § 120.41. In evaluating the scope of this control, please note that the Department offers a decision tool to aid exporters in determining whether a defense article meets the definition of ‘‘specially designed.’’ This tool is available at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/licensing/dtSpeciallyDesigned.htm.
  • Paragraph (i) is updated to provide better clarity on the scope of the control by including examples of Department of Defense tools that are used to determine or estimate potential effects of chemical or biological weapons strikes and incidents in order to plan to mitigate their impacts.
  • A new paragraph (x) has been added to USML Category XIV, allowing ITAR licensing on behalf of the Department of Commerce for commodities, software, and technology subject to the EAR, provided those commodities, software, and technology are to be used in or with defense articles controlled in USML Category XIV and are described in the purchase documentation submitted with the application. The intent of paragraph (x) is not to impose ITAR jurisdiction on commodities, software, and technology subject to EAR controls. Items described in paragraph (x) remain subject to the jurisdiction of the EAR. The Department added the paragraph as a regulatory reference point in response to industry requests to be able to use a Department of State license to export shipments that have a mix of ITAR controlled items and EAR controlled items for use in or with items described in that category.
  • Finally, this rule establishes USML control in subparagraph (f)(2) of certain chemical or biological agent equipment only when it contains reagents, algorithms, coefficients, software, libraries, spectral databases, or alarm set point levels developed under a Department of Defense contract or other funding authorization.

EAR:

This final rule creates five new “600 series” ECCNs in CCL Category 1 (ECCNs 1A607, 1B607, 1C607, 1D607, and 1E607) that clarify the EAR controls applicable to certain dissemination, detection and protection “equipment” and related items that the President has determined no longer warrant control under USML Category XIV. Terms such as “part,” “component” “accessories,” “attachments,” and “specially designed” are applied in the same manner in this rule as those terms are defined in Section 772.1 of the EAR. In addition, to assist exporters in determining the control status of their items, a “Specially Designed” Decision Tool and a CCL Order of Review Decision Tool are available on the BIS Web site at: http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/decision-tree-tools.

  • New ECCN 1A607 Military dissemination “equipment” for riot control agents, military detection and protection “equipment” for toxicological agents (including chemical, biological, and riot control agents), and related commodities. In new ECCN 1A607, paragraphs .a through .d, paragraph .i, and paragraphs .l through .w are reserved. Paragraph .e of ECCN 1A607 controls “equipment” “specially designed” for military use and for the dissemination of any of the riot control agents controlled in ECCN 1C607.a. Paragraph .f of ECCN 1A607 controls protection “equipment” “specially designed” for military use and for defense against either materials controlled by USML Category XIV(a) or (b) or any of the riot control agents in new ECCN 1C607.a. Paragraph .g of ECCN 1A607 controls decontamination “equipment” not controlled by USML Category XIV(f) that is “specially designed” for military use and for the decontamination of objects contaminated with materials controlled by USML Category XIV(a) or (b). Paragraph .h controls “equipment” not controlled by USML Category XIV(f) that is “specially designed” for military use and for the detection or identification of either materials specified by USML Category XIV(a) or (b) or riot control agents controlled by new ECCN 1C607.a. Paragraph .j controls “equipment” “specially designed” to: (i) Interface with a detector, shelter, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft controlled by the USML or a “600 series” ECCN; and (ii) collect and process samples of articles controlled in USML Category XIV(a) or (b). Paragraph .k controls medical countermeasures that are “specially designed” for military use (including pre- and post- treatments, antidotes, and medical diagnostics) and “specially designed” to counter chemical agents controlled by USML Category XIV(a). Paragraph .x controls “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for a commodity controlled under ECCN 1A607.e, .f, .g, .h, or .j or a defense article controlled in USML Category XIV(f) and that are not enumerated or otherwise described elsewhere in the USML.
  • New ECCN 1B607 Military test, inspection, and production “equipment” and related commodities “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities identified in ECCN 1A607 or 1C607, or defense articles enumerated or otherwise described in USML Category XIV.
  • In new ECCN 1B607, paragraph .a controls “equipment,” not including incinerators, that is “specially designed” for the destruction of chemical agents controlled by USML Category XIV(a). Paragraph .b of ECCN 1B607 controls test facilities and “equipment” that are “specially designed” for military certification, qualification, or testing of commodities controlled by new ECCN 1A607.e, .f, .g, .h, or .j or by USML Category XIV(f), except for XIV(f)(1). Paragraph .c of ECCN 1B607 controls tooling and “equipment” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities controlled under new ECCN 1A607.e, .f, .g, .h, or .j or USML Category XIV(f). Paragraphs .d through .w are reserved. Paragraph .x controls “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments,” not enumerated or otherwise described elsewhere in the USML, that are “specially designed” for a commodity controlled by ECCN 1B607.b or .c or for a defense article controlled by USML Category XIV(f). As indicated above, ECCN 1B607.b does not control test facilities and “equipment” that are “specially designed” for military certification, qualification, or testing of commodities and are enumerated or otherwise described in USML Category XIV(f)(1), as set forth in State’s companion rule to this final rule (e.g., see the equipment in USML Category XIV(f)(1)(ii) that is “specially designed” for testing the articles controlled in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (e), or (f)(4) of USML Category XIV). In addition to the test facilities and “equipment” controlled by ECCN 1B607.b, see the tooling and “equipment” classified under ECCN 2B350 or 2B352 for producing the chemical/biological agents, precursors, or defoliants described in USML Category XIV(a), (b), (c), or (e). The EAR also control tooling and “equipment” to produce the antibodies/polynucleotides and vaccines described in USML Category XIV(g) and (h), respectively, as follows: lab “equipment” designated as EAR99 under the EAR; biological dual-use “equipment” (including protective “equipment”) classified under ECCN 2B352; and EAR-controlled biological systems for making vaccines (involving the use of mice, rabbits, etc.).
  • New ECCN 1C607?Tear gases, riot control agents and materials for the detection and decontamination of chemical warfare agents. New ECCN 1C607.a controls specified tear gases and riot control agents. Paragraph .b of ECCN 1C607 controls “biopolymers” not controlled by USML Category XIV(g) that are “specially designed” or processed for the detection or identification of chemical warfare (CW) agents specified by USML Category XIV(a) and the cultures of specific cells used to produce them. Paragraph .c controls specified “biocatalysts” and biological systems that are not controlled by USML Category XIV(g) and are “specially designed” for the decontamination or degradation of CW agents specified by USML Category XIV(a). Paragraph .d controls chemical mixtures not controlled by USML Category XIV(f) that are “specially designed” for military use for the decontamination of objects contaminated with materials specified by USML Category XIV(a) or (b).
  • New ECCN 1D607?“Software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of items controlled by 1A607, 1B607 or 1C607. New ECCN 1D607.a controls “software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of items controlled by ECCN 1A607, 1B607 or 1C607. Paragraph .b of ECCN 1D607 is reserved.
  • New ECCN 1E607?“Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of items controlled by ECCN 1A607, 1B607, 1C607, or 1D607. New ECCN 1E607.a controls “technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of items controlled by ECCN 1A607, 1B607, 1C607, or 1D607. Paragraph .b of ECCN 1E607 is reserved.
  • Amendments to License Exceptions BAG and TMP related to Individual Protection “Equipment” in ECCN 1A607.f. This final rule amends the License Exception BAG provisions in Section 740.14(h) of the EAR to authorize exports, reexports, or in-country transfers of chemical or biological agent protective gear consistent with the requirements and restrictions described therein. In a corresponding change, this final rule also amends the License Exception TMP provisions in Section 740.9(a)(11) of the EAR to authorize temporary exports, reexports, or in-country transfers of chemical or biological agent protective gear consistent with the requirements and restrictions described therein. The amendments to License Exceptions BAG and TMP also change the requirements for Afghanistan to be consistent with those of the majority of other Country Group D:5 destinations (i.e., the U.S. person authorized to use the license exception must be affiliated with the U.S. Government and be traveling on official business or traveling in support of a U.S. Government contract). The same requirement applies to the use of these license exception provisions for Iraq, also a D:5 country, with the additional option that the U.S. person must be traveling to Iraq under a direct authorization by the Government of Iraq and engaging in activities for, on behalf of, or at the request of, the Government of Iraq. These amendments are also intended to ensure that the scope of these license exceptions, as they apply to chemical or biological agent protective gear controlled under new ECCN 1A607.f, conforms with the scope of the ITAR exemption for personal protective equipment in Section 123.17 of the ITAR (e.g., by correcting the provisions for Afghanistan, as described above, to be consistent with those of the majority of other Country Group D:5 destinations).

DDTC Agreements Guidelines Updated

Tuesday, September 6th, 2016 by Danielle McClellan

On August 11, 2016, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) announced its newest revision to the Guidelines for Preparing Agreements, which will become effective September 1, 2016. The changes will bring the Agreement Guidelines in line with certain revisions to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that will also take effect on September 1, 2016.
Highlights of the changes:

  • Various sections of the Agreement Guidelines have been updated to reflect the new definitions for the terms “export,” “reexport” and “retransfer” that will go into effect on September 1.
  • Revision of Section 3.5: Dual/Third Country National (DN/TCN) to remove § 124.16 from Option 2, add references to § 126.18(d) in Option 1, redact the term “retransfer” from the guidance and required statements, remove country of birth as a consideration when vetting DN/TCNs via Option 2, update the required agreement statements for DN/TCN requests pursuant to § 124.8(5), and remove the optional agreement statement for § 126.1 non-(a) TCN requests.
  • The required statements throughout the Agreement Guidelines are updated, including the statement on sublicensing to U.S. Persons, the required statements for DN/TCN requests pursuant to § 124.8(5), and the § 124.8(5) verbatim clause.
  • Templates in Appendix A are updated to remove the § 124.12(a)(10) statement from the transmittal letter, remove the § 124.16 statement from the agreement, and update the required statements mentioned above.

Note:  Applicants are not required to submit an amendment for the sole purpose of updating these statements or removing the § 124.16 statement.  However, the statements must be updated at the next major amendment.  All agreement/amendment applications submitted after September 1, 2016, must include the new required statements, if applicable.  If an old statement is used, a proviso will be added instructing the applicant to change it prior to execution.  Applicants may begin using the new statements prior to September 1.

The templates in Appendix A have been updated to: – Remove the § 124.12(a)(10) statement from the transmittal letter – Remove the § 124.16 statement from the agreement – Update the mandatory statements listed above.

Revised Guidelines: https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/licensing/documents/agreement_guidelinesv4.4.pdf

Summary of Changes: https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/licensing/documents/agreement_guidelines_preamblev4.4.pdf

EAR and ITAR Will Require the Same New Destination Control Statement on November 15, 2016

Tuesday, September 6th, 2016 by Danielle McClellan

By: John Black

In the August 17, 2016 Federal Register the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) announced that effective November 1, 2016, the same Destination Control Statements (DCS) will be required for exports under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and exports under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).  The good news is that exporters no longer will have to use one statement for EAR exports and a different statement for ITAR exports.

The bad news is neither the current EAR DCS nor the current ITAR DCS will be required under the new rules.  When it comes to reprogramming our software that prints documents, it might have been easier if the government had chosen one of the existing statements already in use.  On the other hand, several adjustments to the ITAR and EAR will make life easier for exporters in the long run.

 

Practical Considerations When Implementing the Change

As you prepare to comply with the requirement to comply with the new rules beginning on for the November 15, 2016, here are some important considerations.

 

The New DCS:

‘‘These items are controlled by the U.S. Government and authorized for export only to the country of ultimate destination for use by the ultimate consignee or end-user(s) herein identified. They may not be resold, transferred, or otherwise disposed of, to any other country or to any person other than the authorized ultimate consignee or end-user(s), either in their original form or after being incorporated into other items, without first obtaining approval from the U.S. government or as otherwise authorized by U.S. law and regulations.’’

 

(Interestingly to me, the EAR Federal Register notice does not put a period after the last word “regulations” in the EAR DCS while the ITAR Federal Register notice does place a period after the last word “regulations” in the ITAR DCS.  I doubt anybody else noticed that.  I also doubt this is a deliberate conspiracy by DDTC and BIS to set up exporters who do not properly include or not include the period in their DCS.)

 

When the DCS Is Required:

  • ITAR:  For all defense articles exported in tangible form
  • EAR:  For all items exported in tangible form except a DCS is not required for EAR99 items and items eligible for license exceptions BAG or GFT.

 

ITAR and EAR DCS Required only for Tangible Shipments.  A DCS is not required for items being exported in intangible form such as electronic, oral or visual exports.

 

Where Do You Have to Put the DCS:   The new DCS must be put on the commercial invoice, and not on the airway bill, bill of lading, or other documents.

 

Other Information You Must Put on the Commercial Invoice:  The ITAR and EAR will require the following be put on the commercial invoice, in addition to the DCS:

 

  • ITAR:  1) The country of ultimate destination,

2) The end-user, and

3) The license or other approval number or exemption citation.

  • EAR:    The ECCN for any 9×515 or 600 series items

 

Information Required When Using ITAR Authorizations to Export EAR-Controlled Items:  The new rule clearly requires that when an ITAR license or authorization (exemption) is used to export EAR controlled items, the exporter must give the ECCN or EAR99 classification for each EAR-controlled item to the end-user and consignees.

Removal of Special Requirements for Certain EAR Exports to India:  The new EAR rule will remove the special DCS requirement for exports to India of items controlled for crime control column 1 or 3 reasons or regional stability column 2 reasons.

Other ITAR Changes

Exports of EAR Items under ITAR Exemptions:  The rule clarifies that EAR Items may be exported under ITAR exemptions only if they are being shipped with ITAR items.

Changes to Required Language in ITAR Agreements and Transmittal Letters:  The rule makes several changes to the required language and clauses in ITAR agreements and transmittal letters.

To see the new EAR and ITAR rules, go to http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/regulations/federal-register-notices#fr54721

Successful Violations for Dummies: Don’t Fly to the US when Attempting to Arrange Illegal Exports

Friday, May 27th, 2016 by Danielle McClellan

New Zealand Man Arrested in Seattle After Contacting Undercover Agent

By: Danielle McClellan

William Ali, a New Zealand man has been indicted in Seattle on federal charges that he attempted to purchase aircraft parts in the US that he planned to sell to a client in China. Last year Ali contacted a US company looking for “aircraft parts called accelerometers.” These parts are developed for low or zero gravity navigation systems used in spacecraft and aircraft and any one selling the items must have an export license (Ali did not).

A Homeland Security agent began to investigate Ali shortly after he contacted the company looking to purchase the accelerometers. The agent and Ali exchanged emails and Ali admitted that he knew there were controls on the sale of the items that he was looking to buy and that trying to buy them was turning out to be difficult. He also explained that he didn’t think he could get an export license for the parts so he was trying to purchase them through different sources. His client was looking for a “huge quantity” of the product because they were “manufacturing a variant of the MA60 aircraft and needed high-quality US parts” according to the criminal complaint.

After considering all of his options, Ali flew to Seattle to pick up the pars where he was arrested when he arrived on April 11, 2016.

More Details: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/new-zealand-man-faces-illegal-export-charges-in-seattle/